With renewed scrutiny of the 9/11 Commission’s investigation due to the Able Danger revelations, several additional questions have been raised about why the Commission failed to include items in their timeline that seem relevant to the investigation as well as additional witnesses whose testimony was, for some reason, not taken.

Ed Morrisey has done a bang up job highlighting the arrest of Iraqi intelligence agents in Germany which occurred at the time that Mohammed Atta and other members of his Hamburg cell were planning the 9/11 attack in Germany. And two seperate memos - one from the State Department and one from the Department of Justice talk about the problems associated with the so-called “wall” set up between the Department of Justice and the FBI, something that many observers believe the Commission should have looked into by calling as a witness one of thier own members, Jamie Gorelick.

Now comes word that the Commission also failed to interview someone who could have told them much about Mohammed Atta. Rudi Dekkers owned the flight school where Atta and fellow hijacker Marwan al-Shehhi trained. Dekkers also notes another, more peculiar aspect of the Commission’s investigation; he says they got the dates wrong of Atta’s training:

Atta and al-Shehhi first came to Huffman Aviation on July 3, 2000, Dekkers said.

They trained there until Jan. 2, 2001. Each man logged 200 hours of flying time, including lessons in flying commercial airliners.

Dekkers said he is upset that the 9/11 Commission omitted Able Danger’s findings from its report.

Dekkers said he has suspected the 9/11 Commission, appointed by President Bush to investigate the attacks, did not get all the information and that some things reported were wrong.

“The funny thing about it is, if somebody does an investigation like this 9/11 panel, aren’t they supposed to talk to everybody?” Dekkers said. “They never talked to me. Never.”

Dekkers also said that the 9/11 report incorrectly states the dates that Atta spent in Venice.

“If my involvement in the 9/11 report is not accurate, I believe that there is more stuff written that is not accurate,” Dekkers said.

Dekkers has been at the center of conspiracy theorists claims about 9/11 since the first hours following the attacks. In truth, reading about him on the web, he comes off as one of the strangest characters in the 9/11 narrative.

Revelations regarding a loose connection of Huffman Airlines to a CIA proprietary airline (a maintenance company for the CIA asset had a hanger at the same airport and Dekkers had a shadowy relationship with said maintenance company) as well as speculation regarding drug running by clients of Huffman (including an actual bust involving 43 lbs. of heroin found on a Huffman Lear Jet) have set the tin foil hat crowd all atwitter. And as this writer points out, there are several very strange coincidences involving Dekkers that could - maybe - lead one to believe that the CIA in fact was engaged in a covert operation to penetrate al Qaeda by sponsoring flight training for Muslim students. It’s a stretch, but the evidence “fits.” All that means, of course, that if you have a pre-concived idea, you can pick and choose your evidence to prove just about anything.

This brings us back to the 9/11 Commission and why they won’t talk to Dekkers. From reading about this fellow, it becomes apparent that he’s a pretty shady character. He was arrested and charged with fraud in 2003. And there’s been considerable speculation about where Dekkers got the money to buy Huffman in the first place. Rather than sounding like a CIA operative, he appears to be someone who could have been duped (or bribed) into aiding American intelligence.

As John Patten points out in his article, there certainly are some questions that need answering regarding Rudi Dekkers. However, none of those questions relate to any additional role Huffman Airlines played in the 9/11 narrative beyond the two hijackers taking flight training with the company. And this testimony by Dekkers before the House Judiciary Committee pretty much sums up whatever information he could have given to the Commission.

Should the Commission have interviewed Dekkers? If they were trying to do a thorough job the answer would have to be yes. But as we look closer at the Commission’s work in the wake of revelations about Able Danger, it’s becoming more apparent that the Commission in fact did a sloppy and slipshod job in tying up loose ends.

For that reason alone, Senate hearings may be necessary.

NOTE: One other fascinating aspect of Huffman Airlines has to do with the FBI being on their doorstep about 4 hours after the buildings came down on 9/11. I looked for the “FBI Investigative Timeline” mentioned in the 9/11 report to see if that document could have shed light on this rather curious bit of information. However, it was not in the report itself nor could I find an independent rendering of it. Perhaps it’s classified. If not and if you know a link to it, I’d appreciate it if you dropped me a note in the comments or email me.

Someone may want to explain how the FBI was able to trace Atta to the flight school so quickly. What piques my interest is that this would be the kind of information that Able Danger would have had at its fingertips. Did someone slip the FBI Able Danger findings immediately after 9/11?

As I said…curious.